Re: Rationalize specifying "where the packages are" somewhat
Ben Wing <ben(a)666.com> writes:
Michael Sperber wrote:
>This does away with the "--package-prefix" kludge and instead adds
>configure options (with associated environment variables):
>
>--with-early-packages (ultimately defaults to ~/.xemacs)
>--with-late-packages (ultimately defaults to ../lib/xemacs)
> --with-last-packages
>
>that allow you to say where the packages are. What's good is that
>people can specify one of these without screwing up the other ones.
>It also fits much more naturally with the internal model. I've also
>cleaned up some of the stuff hanging off it.
>
>I'll wait until Sunday with this. Once it's settled down (I'm sure
>I'll have screwed up something), I'll make another pass over the
>documentation. (Long overdue, I know.)
>
>
Mike, i'm concerned about this patch because it looks like a step in the
wrong direction. the whole point of --package-prefix was to make it
easy to specify "the packages are HERE" without worrying about the
complexities of the package system.
Yes, but that failed: People got tangled up nevertheless, primarily
because they only wanted to change one aspect of "where the packages
are" but ended up screwing up one of the others.
you've removed this and replaced it with something that is
rather
more opaque; it will not be obvious to the average user which of the
above options is correct. (presumably --with-late-packages?)
This can (and probably should be) easily fixed by giving this (and
possibly --with-early-packages, too) more intuitive aliases. I'm open
to suggestions. ("--with-packages" + "--with-user-packages", maybe?)
However, "--with-package-prefix" doesn't cut it because it's
inconsistent with the terminology of the rest of the system, and
because a "prefix" can mean any of at least 3 things in the context of
the system.
--
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla